Bottom Line:
The whole mol-ecule of compound (2) is generated by twofold symmetry, with the ether O atom located on the twofold axis.Both compounds have intra-molecular π-π inter-actions between terminal phenyl rings with centroid-centroid distances of 3.6214 (16) and 3.8027 (14) Å in (1) and (2), respectively.In the crystal of (1), short C-H⋯S hydrogen bonds link the mol-ecules, forming chains along [001], while in (2) there are no analogous C-H⋯Se inter-actions present.

ABSTRACTThe title compounds, C36H28OP2S2, (1), and C36H28OP2Se2, (2), exhibit remarkably similar structures although they are not isomorphous. The whole mol-ecule of compound (2) is generated by twofold symmetry, with the ether O atom located on the twofold axis. Both compounds have intra-molecular π-π inter-actions between terminal phenyl rings with centroid-centroid distances of 3.6214 (16) and 3.8027 (14) Å in (1) and (2), respectively. In the crystal of (1), short C-H⋯S hydrogen bonds link the mol-ecules, forming chains along [001], while in (2) there are no analogous C-H⋯Se inter-actions present.

Mentions:
The inter­molecular features of (1) and (2) reveal additional differences between these seemingly similar structures. In the crystal of (1), most notably there are three unique inter­molecular C—H⋯S inter­actions (Table 1 ▶) shorter than the sum of the van der Waals radii. Each mol­ecule participates as a C—H donor with two different S2 acceptors as well as one S1 acceptor (Table 1 ▶ and Fig. 5 ▶). As such, each mol­ecule is involved in C—H⋯S inter­molecular inter­actions with three other unique mol­ecules. In the crystal of (2), no analogous C—H⋯Se inter­molecular inter­actions are present.

Mentions:
The inter­molecular features of (1) and (2) reveal additional differences between these seemingly similar structures. In the crystal of (1), most notably there are three unique inter­molecular C—H⋯S inter­actions (Table 1 ▶) shorter than the sum of the van der Waals radii. Each mol­ecule participates as a C—H donor with two different S2 acceptors as well as one S1 acceptor (Table 1 ▶ and Fig. 5 ▶). As such, each mol­ecule is involved in C—H⋯S inter­molecular inter­actions with three other unique mol­ecules. In the crystal of (2), no analogous C—H⋯Se inter­molecular inter­actions are present.

Bottom Line:
The whole mol-ecule of compound (2) is generated by twofold symmetry, with the ether O atom located on the twofold axis.Both compounds have intra-molecular π-π inter-actions between terminal phenyl rings with centroid-centroid distances of 3.6214 (16) and 3.8027 (14) Å in (1) and (2), respectively.In the crystal of (1), short C-H⋯S hydrogen bonds link the mol-ecules, forming chains along [001], while in (2) there are no analogous C-H⋯Se inter-actions present.

ABSTRACTThe title compounds, C36H28OP2S2, (1), and C36H28OP2Se2, (2), exhibit remarkably similar structures although they are not isomorphous. The whole mol-ecule of compound (2) is generated by twofold symmetry, with the ether O atom located on the twofold axis. Both compounds have intra-molecular π-π inter-actions between terminal phenyl rings with centroid-centroid distances of 3.6214 (16) and 3.8027 (14) Å in (1) and (2), respectively. In the crystal of (1), short C-H⋯S hydrogen bonds link the mol-ecules, forming chains along [001], while in (2) there are no analogous C-H⋯Se inter-actions present.